ExNAS: Experiential neural architecture selection for real-time inference optimization


Abstract

Operational amnesia constitutes both a limiting condition and an emergent cost in neural networks: models process each input as if encountering it for the first time, unable to recall which computational patterns proved effective in similar contexts. This stateless processing wastes computational resources by re-solving familiar problems and prevents networks from leveraging their own operational history. We introduce ExNAS (Experiential Neural Architecture Selection), a system that addresses operational amnesia through real-time, fine-grained substructure selection (channels, neurons, or heads, depending on architecture) during inference. ExNAS maintains a lightweight experiential memory that records layer-wise activation fingerprints—not content, but process signatures from guardrail-satisfying runs. Given a new input, ExNAS retrieves similar past contexts and applies structurally guided selection across non-consecutive layers, effectively allowing the network to remember how it solved comparable problems. We evaluate ExNAS on compact CNNs and Transformer language models. On CNNs (CPU), ExNAS achieves up to 7.9% wall-clock time reduction without retraining. On Transformers (Qwen2-1.5B, DistilGPT-2), we observe +2 to 4% throughput gains under 1% or less perplexity degradation via experience-guided FFN selection. All configurations respect hardware alignment constraints for compatibility with optimized kernels. Results are reported with 95% confidence intervals over repeated runs. ExNAS demonstrates that addressing operational amnesia through inference-time experiential selection is feasible and effective under explicit quality guardrails—providing reproducible gains on modern architectures without retraining. Code and reproducibility harness are publicly released.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].